srythfandomcom-20200214-history
Template talk:Questbox
About the template * Is it really necessary to separate lines in the Rewards section by tags? I feel that will make more difficult for "non-technical" people to use the template -- Scarbrowtalk 13:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC) ** In the current format, yes, it is necessary. I'll see if I can find a way to manage without this tag. --Hav0c 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC) *** Yeah, I tried having it display the rewards as a bullet list, but that really didn't work. I'd love to see that done somehow, but in the meantime I don't think using tags is all that difficult for non-technical users; just about everybody knows a little HTML these days, don't they? — Young Ned (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC) * When putting the new anchors, we should make sure that the anchor is just the name, eliminating the need to care about the (AG) part in the title and standardizing the naming of quests so they can be linked from any other page to the Quest List-- Scarbrowtalk 13:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC) ** This can be done without any issues. --Hav0c 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC) About Quest Documenting I'm not fully satisfied with the way we're documenting quests right now. For quests who are only in Quest List, we have no option except list rewards along with how to get them, what is perceived as spoilerish by many. For quests that also have its own page (like The Blood of Zardruzin) we have repeated information and the same spoiler problem. So I think it's time to change our approach to quest documenting. My proposals: # We can enclose all quests in the Quest List between tags. That way, the player that goes there (s)he can select which quest rewards to see, and is less prone to discover accidentally too much about an unrelated subject. It's a rather radical proposal, but quick and easy to implement. # We can enclose only the Rewards part between spoiler tags. The problem with this proposal, along with number 1, is that is would completely moot the purpose of the Questbox template. Or is it possible for the Questbox template to host a pair of Spoilertags?. # We can try to have a dedicated page with full spoiler potential for each and every quest, and then the Questbox template would only need to have Location, Description, Prereqs, Difficulty, and maybe some hints, and then link to the full quest page. This proposal, while it means a lot of work and is "too much" for some simple, quick quests, is probably safer in the long run, since it avoids duplication of quest info, spoiler potential on Quest List, fixes the old problem with synchronization between Quest List and Quest Index (the latter would become unnecessary) and helps standardizing. In the long run, we'll have the central Quest List, without spoilers, for all to check difficulties and locations of quests (I think those are the primary concerns of people who come to the wiki for a quick help), a full set of dedicated Quest Pages, with the standard names used on the Quest List, and of course all of the accessory pages for Locations, Game Concepts, etc. I see that one day it would be possible to see each location (e.g. Hawklor) with a table of adventures like Let's open a discussion about how we should do it. Sorry about the long rant ;-) Scarbrowtalk 13:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC) * I agree. The tags work fine even inside the box, as you can try out. However, your third suggestion seems to be the most elegant to me. It is a lot of work though. --Hav0c 15:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC) ** It's not more work than the migration itself, and I'm managing very well ;-). I think I'll start with first option once the migration is complete, leaving the "Questboxization" for later, once the new "anchorized" version is up (today I feel like making up words lol) Scarbrowtalk 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC) * Great ideas, Scarbrow! I like your third option, too. One suggestion: for the "simple, quick quests" that don't really need pages of their own, maybe we could have a "Simple Quests" or "Quest Details" page where they could all go? We'd still get all the benefits of simplifying the Quest List page, which would simply link to Quest Name instead of Quest Name as for the bigger quests. And we'd have visual consistency on Quest List between the ones with dedicated pages and the simpler ones. — Young Ned (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC) ** I'm glad you like it, Young Ned. Could you please specify how would your suggestion provide "visual consistency on Quest List between the ones with dedicated pages and the simpler ones"? The way I see it, if each and every quest had its own page, the format will be consistent: one quest, one page, one entry on Quest List. My objections to your idea: *** If you put several quests on a dedicated page, you're breaking the contract in which everybody should be able to trust: that if they link to a page with the name of a quest, it will be the one (long or short) with information about that quest. And if you add redirects, you could have put there the quest information instead of a redirect. *** By putting together several quests, no matter how small, we'll be risking again to spoil somebody about something that wasn't expected. The idea is that if you go to a quest page, it should not contain spoilers about other quests. And if it's necessary to say something, anything, about another quest (for example, that The Blood of Zardruzin is the next adventure to Vault of The Iron Dragon, that should be in another layer of protection. That way we could claim (after finishing this formatting) that the wiki is spoiler-safe, provided you use it this-and-this way. Scarbrowtalk 13:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC) ** Well, you were the one who said a separate page would be too much for some simple, quick quests; I was just trying to come up with a solution to that. If you don't want a solution to that, why did you make that objection? I'm confuzzled. If you want to just give every quest its own page, that's fine. With the "visual consistency" comment, I was assuming that the alternative to creating a combined page would be to leave the simple quests on the Quest List page, since you didn't seem to want to give them their own pages. Having some quests explained in full while others had a link to another page would be inconsistent. Having all quests link somewhere else, even if some of the links went to a combined page rather than individual pages, would be much more consistent. Does that make sense now? — Young Ned (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC) ** I was just thinking about this since I found it hard to navigate the quests. Since the game is very addicting and looks like it will be around (and has been around) for a long time, I think I will try to contribute what I can, especially as I recently started (2+ weeks) and can pretty much scrub through the quests in their entirety. I think an article for each quest makes the most sense in terms of growth, organization, and flexibility. The only disadvantage is that short quests are basically stubs, but I doubt anyone cares here. At the least, those articles would still have location and description information. The one additional thing that I think would be helpful for a non-spoiler quest entry would be the types of rewards to expect e.g. General/Specific/AS&P XP, +MR/SP/NV items. K!ZeRo 10:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC) *** I'm sorry to have confused you, I agree the original paragraph is confusing. What I meant is that a dedicated page for a quest that can be explained in two lines (a stub) is almost "too much", but I still think it's the better option in terms of consistency. Seems we have a consensus here: all quests is Quest List should link to a page with the full explanation, be it long or short. Regarding K!ZeRo's suggestion, the fact that the Quest List right now lists the rewards along with the description is the reason most players consider it "too spoilerish". If you want to know details about a quest, you'll have the option of checking the entire page, or asking in the forum. Scarbrowtalk 18:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC) **** For the rewards, I meant nothing specific, but more of "Will give AS&P XP". Sometimes, a criterion on what quest to perform would be "no AS&P XP" while I don't have many powers, and that would be a useful filter. Likewise, maybe someone wants to get more SP (for grinding) through quest items, and would do quests that "Will give +SP item". Nothing specific, but don't know if that is considered too spoilerish or not. Anyway, it's something that can easily be added after the fact. K!ZeRo 22:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC) ***** I think the "Will give AS&P XP" warning is a good one, without indicating how much will it really be. Could you put it on the to-do list for the "new version" of the template, Hav0c? It only needs to be a true/false field. I'm not so sure about the objects, though. Maybe you could set up a parallel page with a list of items you can get from quests (it would really be just a list or table). For example, from exploring Hawklor you'll have to list the Ring of Souls. I doubt the necessity of that list, however. If you want to build up your character quickly, you can use the Character Startup Guide, while if you want to explore a quest in advance you'll always have the full quest page. Scarbrowtalk 02:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC) New Template parameters From what I can see, the parameters needed for the new template are: # Quest Name #* This will have a 'Heading Level' parameter, similar to Template:Itembox. #* The Quest name will automagically link to a page containing the quest itself. # AG staus #* Like the current version, will show up after the quest name, and will affect the colour of the bar. # Location # Quest Description # Difficulty # Prerequisites # A 'warning' if the quest gives rewards to all skills and powers. # Notes, if any #* The notes will show up in a separate section, again like Template:Itembox. If this is fine with everyone, I'll go ahead and make the changes.--Havoc(talk) 07:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC) :I like these parameters. A slightly trivial matter, but I also like the order that you have the parameters listed, except swap Prereqs and Difficulty (I think fulfilling the prereq would have to come first before considering if it is too difficult). K!ZeRo 07:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC) :That sounds great, Havoc. Swapping Prereqs and Difficulty makes sense, too. — Young Ned (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)